One Question About Marketing Largesse

What in the world did the Olympic Committee get for $800,000 that it could not have received for $800?

I don't care if it was objectively the best logo in the history of mankind, it's not the logo that makes the brand, and thus it's not going to be worth $800k. How many world-class Olympic athletes could have been trained for $799,200? It seems that would have gone further to advance the brand than a logo -- bad or good.

Here are some more detailed takes on it. If you haven't yet, I encourage you to check them out.
David
Scott
Lewis
Mack
Seth

- Cam Beck

P.S. As an aside, does anyone not know where the 2012 Olympics will be held? I'm not one to advocate being intentionally bad for the sake of getting noticed and to get the message out, but does anyone think that might be an issue at play here?

Update: Valeria has picked up on this last theme and ran with it. In her mind, the conversation generated by this logo was worth the expense.

As I said on Mack's blog, I don't think the logo will hurt the brand of the Olympics, since brands aren't built on logos, and as I said here, it's of some note that THERE IS NO QUESTION where the 2012 Olympics will be held -- so I think it's clear that London is getting some great mileage from this "controversy." However, my original question, "What in the world did the Olympic Committee get for $800,000 that it could not have received for $800?"... still stands. :)

Comments

[David Armano]

Cam,

nice round up of links. Thanks for pulling together!

[Matt Haverkamp]

Didn't the video also cause seizures. So not only does the logo suck, but it can physically hurt you as well.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fapps%2Fnews%3Fpid%3D20601102%26sid%3Dat.hHVfk50eQ%26refer%3Duk&ei=lvZmRrPIKIfgggSZjMi1Aw&usg=AFQjCNE8Sjv5JAFUh3i1aU2vJpQQ7MBgSQ&sig2=TY1JPES_c2arknLE7Dqlzw

[Matt Haverkamp]

Sorry bad link, here is the story -

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=at.hHVfk50eQ&refer=uk

[Lewis Green]

Cam,

Thanks for sharing your point of view. Valeria is correct: No matter what we may thing of this logo or its cost, it seems to be creating buzz. However good buzz five years prior to an event may be it is short-term. And I agree, no logo is worth $800,000 or even more than a $1000.

[Cam Beck]

Lewis - There are so many great perspectives on this issue... I'm enjoying the discussion immensely. I agree with Valeria, too, that the buzz being generated by this, since it does not actually damage the brand of either the Olympics or London, might end up being worth $800k, but if it does turn out that way, I think it will have been a complete, happy accident. :)

[Paul Herring]

I remember this same conversation when Atlanta released their logo. What makes it good or bad?

[Cam Beck]

Paul - From an aesthetic perspective, I don't really care for it, but I don't think it's going to hurt the brand in any way. It's such a subjective thing to begin with, and brands aren't established with a logo.

Otherwise, I have only 799,200 reasons to dislike it.

[David Reich]

I'm not crazy about the logo. $800,000!! I remember when NBC came out with its new logo that cost more than a million, and it turned out to be very similar to the logo for a PBS station that someone had designed for a few hundred dollars.

The London logo makes me think of modernistic stylized Hebrew letters. Instead of Olympic gold, maybe London will give out Olympic matzoh balls, to go along with the Hebrew theme.